12.
Again it is objected, that many who have embraced this doctrine,
really are spiritually proud. To this I answer:

(1.) So have
many who believed the doctrine of regeneration been deceived, and
amazingly puffed up with the idea that they have been regenerated,
when they have not been. But is this a good reason for abandoning
the doctrine of regeneration, or any reason why the doctrine
should not be preached?

(2.) Let me
inquire, whether a simple declaration of what God has done for
their souls, has not been assumed as of itself sufficient evidence
of spiritual pride, on the part of those who embrace this
doctrine, while there was in reality no spiritual pride at all? It
seems next to impossible, with the present views of the church,
that an individual should really attain this state, and profess to
live without known sin in a manner so humble as not, of course, to
be suspected of enormous spiritual pride. This consideration has
been a snare to some, who have hesitated and even neglected to
declare what God had done for their souls, lest they should be
accused of spiritual pride. And this has been a serious injury to
their piety.

13. But again
it is objected, that this doctrine tends to censoriousness. To
this I reply:

(1.) It is
not denied, that some who have professed to believe this doctrine
have become censorious. But this no more condemns this doctrine
than it condemns that of regeneration. And that it tends to
censoriousness, might just as well be urged against every
acknowledged doctrine of the Bible, as against this doctrine.

(2.) Let any
Christian do his whole duty to the church and the world in their
present state, let him speak to them and of them as they really
are, and he would of course incur the charge of censoriousness. It
is therefore the most unreasonable thing in the world, to suppose
that the church in its present state, would not accuse any perfect
Christian of censoriousness. Entire sanctification implies the
doing of all our duty. But to do all our duty, we must rebuke sin
in high places and in low places. Can this be done with all needed
severity, without in many cases giving offence, and incurring the
charge of censoriousness? No, it is impossible; and to maintain
the contrary, would be to impeach the wisdom and holiness of Jesus
Christ himself.

14. It is
objected, that the believers in this doctrine lower the standard
of holiness to a level with their own experience. To this I reply,
that it has been common to set up a false standard, and to
overlook the true spirit and meaning of the law, and to represent
it as requiring something else than what it does require; but this
notion is not confined to those who believe in this doctrine. The
moral law requires one and the same thing of all moral agents,
namely, that they shall be universally and disinterestedly
benevolent; in other words, that they shall love the Lord their
God with all their heart, and their neighbour as themselves. This
is all that it does require of any. Whoever has understood the law
as requiring less or more than this, has misunderstood it. Love is
the fulfilling of the law. But I must refer the reader to what I
have said upon this subject when treating of moral government.

The law, as
we have seen on a former occasion, levels its claims to us as we
are, and a just exposition of it, as I have already said, must
take into consideration all the present circumstances of our
being. This is indispensable to a right apprehension of what
constitutes entire sanctification. There may be, as facts show,
danger of misapprehension in regard to the true spirit and meaning
of the law, in the sense that, by theorizing and adopting a false
philosophy, one may lose sight of the deepest affirmations of his
reason in regard to the true spirit and meaning of the law; and I
would humbly inquire, whether the error has not been in giving
such an interpretation of the law, as naturally to beget the idea
so prevalent, that, if a man should become holy, he could not live
in this world? In a letter lately received from a beloved, and
useful, and venerated minister of the gospel, while the writer
expressed the greatest attachment to the doctrine of entire
consecration to God, and said that he preached the same doctrine
which we hold to his people every Sabbath, but by another name,
still he added, that it was revolting to his feelings to hear any
mere man set up the claim of obedience to the law of God. Now let
me inquire, why should this be revolting to the feelings of piety?
Must it not be because the law of God is supposed to require
something of human beings in our state, which it does not and
cannot require? Why should such a claim be thought extravagant,
unless the claims of the living God be thought extravagant? If the
law of God really requires no more of men than what is reasonable
and possible, why should it be revolting to any mind to hear an
individual profess to have attained to entire obedience? I know
that the brother to whom I allude, would be almost the last man to
deliberately and knowingly give any strained interpretation to the
law of God; and yet, I cannot but feel that much of the difficulty
that good men have upon this subject, has arisen out of a
comparison of the lives of saints with a standard entirely above
that which the law of God does or can demand of persons in all
respects in our circumstances, or indeed of any moral agent
whatever.

15. Another
objection is, that, as a matter of fact, the grace of God is not
sufficient to secure the entire sanctification of saints in this
life. It is maintained, that the question of the attainability of
entire sanctification in this life, resolves itself after all into
the question, whether Christians are sanctified in this life? The
objectors say, that nothing is sufficient grace that does not, as
a matter of fact, secure the faith, and obedience, and perfection
of the saints; and therefore that the provisions of the gospel are
to be measured by the results; and that the experience of the
church decides both the meaning of the promises, and the extent of
the provisions of grace. Now to this I answer:--If this objection
be good for anything in regard to entire sanctification, it is
equally true in regard to the spiritual state of every person in
the world. If the fact that men are not perfect, proves that no
provision is made for their perfection, their being no better than
they are proves, that there is no provision for their being any
better than they are, or that they might not have aimed at being
any better, with any rational hope of success. But who, except a
fatalist, will admit any such conclusion as this? And yet I do not
see but this conclusion is inevitable from such premises. As well
might an impenitent sinner urge, that the grace of the gospel is
not, as a matter of fact, sufficient for him, because it does not
convert him: as well might he resolve everything into the
sovereignty of God, and say, the sovereignty of God must convert
me, or I shall not be converted: and since I am not converted, it
is because the grace of God has not proved itself sufficient to
convert me. But who will excuse the sinner, and admit his plea,
that the grace and provisions of the gospel are not sufficient for
him?

Let ministers
urge upon both saints and sinners the claims of God. Let them
insist that sinners may, and can, and ought, immediately to become
Christians, and that Christians can, and may, and ought to live
wholly to God. Let them urge Christians to live without sin, and
hold out the same urgency of command, and the same encouragement
that the new school holds out to sinners; and we shall soon find
that Christians are entering into the liberty of perfect love, as
sinners have found pardon and acceptance. Let ministers hold forth
the same gospel to all, and insist that the grace of the gospel is
as sufficient to save from all sin as from a part of it; and we
shall soon see whether the difficulty has not been, that the
gospel has been hid and denied, until the churches have been kept
weak through unbelief. The church has been taught not to expect
the fulfilment of the promises to them; that it is dangerous error
to expect the fulfilment to them, for example, of the promise in 1
Thess. v. 23, 24: "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly;
and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved
blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he
that calleth you, who also will do it." When God says he will
sanctify us wholly, and preserve us blameless unto the coming of
the Lord, masters in Israel tell us that to expect this is
dangerous error.

16. Another
objection to this doctrine is, that it is contrary to the views of
some of the greatest and best men in the church: that such men as
Augustine, Calvin, Doddridge, Edwards, &c., were of a
different opinion. To this I answer:

(1.) Suppose
they were;--we are to call no man father, in such a sense as to
yield up to him the determination of our views of Christian
doctrine.

(2.) This
objection comes with a very ill grace from those who wholly reject
the opinions of these divines on some of the most important points
of Christian doctrine.

(3.) Those
men all held the doctrine of physical moral depravity, which was
manifestly the ground of their rejecting the doctrine of entire
sanctification in this life. Maintaining, as they seem to have
done, that the constitutional susceptibilities of body and mind
were sinfully depraved, consistency of course led them to reject
the idea, that persons could be entirely sanctified while in the
body. Now, I would ask, what consistency is there in quoting them
as rejecting the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life,
while the reason of this rejection in their minds, was founded in
the doctrine of physical moral depravity, which notion is entirely
denied by those who quote their authority?

17. But
again: it is objected, that, if we should attain this state of
continual consecration or sanctification, we could not know it
until the day of judgment; and that to maintain its attainability
is vain, inasmuch as no one can know whether he has attained it or
not. To this I reply:

(1.) A man's
consciousness is the highest and best evidence of the present
state of his own mind. I understand consciousness to be the mind's
recognition of its own existence and exercises, and that it is the
highest possible evidence to our own minds of what passes within
us. Consciousness can of course testify only to our present
sanctification; but,

(2.) With the
law of God before us as our standard, the testimony of
consciousness, in regard to whether the mind is conformed to that
standard or not, is the highest evidence which the mind can have
of a present state of conformity to that rule.

(3.) It is a
testimony which we cannot doubt, any more than we can doubt our
existence. How do we know that we exist? I answer: by our
consciousness. How do I know that I breathe, or love, or hate, or
sit, or stand, or lie down, or rise up, that I am joyful or
sorrowful? In short, that I exercise any emotion, or violation, or
affection of mind? How do I know that I sin, or repent, or
believe? I answer: by my own consciousness. No testimony can be
"so direct and convincing as this."

Now, in order
to know that my repentance is genuine, I must know what genuine
repentance is. So if I would know whether my love to God and man,
or obedience to the law is genuine, I must have clearly before my
mind the real spirit, and meaning, and bearing of the law of God.
Having the rule before my mind, my own consciousness affords "the
most direct and convincing evidence possible," whether my present
state of mind is conformed to the rule. The Spirit of God is never
employed in testifying to what my consciousness teaches, but in
setting in a strong light before my mind the rule to which I am to
conform my life. It is his province to make me understand, to
induce me to love and obey the truth; and it is the province of
consciousness to testify to my own mind whether I do or do not
obey the truth, when I apprehend it. When God so presents the
truth, as to give the mind assurance, that it understands his mind
and will upon any subject, the mind's consciousness of its own
state in view of that truth, is "the highest and most direct
possible" evidence of whether it obeys or disobeys.

(4.) If a man
cannot be conscious of the character of his own supreme or
ultimate choice, in which choice his moral character consists, how
can he know when, and of what, he is to repent? If he has
committed sin of which he is not conscious, how is he to repent of
it? And if he has a holiness of which he is not conscious, how
could he feel that he has peace with God?

But it is
said, that a man may violate the law, not knowing it, and
consequently have no consciousness that he sinned, but that,
afterwards, a knowledge of the law may convict him of sin. To this
I reply, that if there was absolutely no knowledge that the thing
in question was wrong, the doing of that thing was not sin,
inasmuch as some degree of knowledge of what is right or wrong is
indispensable to the moral character of any act. In such a case,
there may be a sinful ignorance, which may involve all the guilt
of those actions that were done in consequence of it; but that
blame-worthiness lies in that state of heart that has induced
this, and not at all in the violation of the rule of which the
mind was, at the time, entirely ignorant.

(5.) The
Bible everywhere assumes, that we are able to know, and
unqualifiedly requires us to know, what the moral state of our
mind is. It commands us to examine ourselves, to know and to prove
our ourselves. Now, how can this be done, but by bringing our
hearts into the light of the law of God, and then taking the
testimony of our own consciousness, whether we are, or are not, in
a state of conformity to the law? But if we are not to receive the
testimony of our own consciousness, in regard to our present
sanctification, are we to receive it in respect to our repentance,
or any other exercise of our mind whatever? The fact is, that we
may deceive ourselves, by neglecting to compare ourselves with the
right standard. But when our views of the standard are right, and
our consciousness bears witness of a felt, decided, unequivocal
state of mind, we cannot be deceived any more than we can be
deceived in regard to our own existence.

(6.) But it
is said, our consciousness does not teach us what the power and
capacities of our minds are, and that therefore if consciousness
could teach us in respect to the kind of our exercises, it cannot
teach us in regard to their degree, whether they are equal to the
present capacity of our mind. To this I reply:--

(i.)
Consciousness does as unequivocally testify whether we do or do
not love God with all our heart, as it does whether we love him at
all. How does a man know that he lifts as much as he can, or runs,
or walks as fast as he is able? I answer: By his own
consciousness. How does he know that he repents or loves with all
his heart? I answer: By his own consciousness. This is the only
possible way in which he can know it.

(ii.) The
objection implies that God has put within our reach no possible
means of knowing whether we obey him or not. The Bible does not
directly reveal the fact to any man, whether he obeys God or not.
It reveals his duty, but does not reveal the fact whether he
obeys. It refers for this testimony to his own consciousness. The
Spirit of God sets our duty before us, but does not directly
reveal to us whether we do it or not; for this would imply that
every man is under constant inspiration.

But it is
said, the Bible directs our attention to the fact, whether we
outwardly obey or disobey, as evidence whether we are in a right
state of mind or not. But I would inquire, How do we know whether
we obey or disobey? How do we know anything of our conduct but by
our consciousness? Our conduct, as observed by others, is to them
evidence of the state of our hearts. But, I repeat it, our
consciousness of obedience to God is to us the highest, and indeed
the only, evidence of our true character.

(iii.) If a
man's own consciousness is not to be a witness, either for or
against him, other testimony can never satisfy him of the
propriety of God's dealing with him in the final judgment. There
are cases of common occurrence, where the witnesses testify to the
guilt or innocence of a man, contrary to the testimony of his own
consciousness. In all such cases, from the very laws of his being,
he rejects all other testimony: and let me add, that he would
reject the testimony of God, and from the very laws of his being
must reject it, if it contradicted his own consciousness. When God
convicts a man of sin, it is not by contradicting his
consciousness; but by placing the consciousness which he had at
the time, in the clear strong light of his memory, causing him to
discover clearly, and to remember distinctly what light he had,
what thoughts, what convictions, what intention or design; in
other words, what consciousness he had at the time. And this, let
me add, is the way, and the only way, in which the Spirit of God
can convict a man of sin, thus bringing him to condemn himself.
Now, suppose that God should bear testimony against a man, that at
such a time he did such a thing, that such and such were all the
circumstances of the case; and suppose that at the same time the
individual's consciousness unequivocally contradicts him. The
testimony of God in this case could not satisfy the man's mind,
nor lead him into a state of self-condemnation. The only possible
way in which this state of mind could be induced, would be to
annihilate his opposing consciousness, and to convict him simply
upon the testimony of God.

(7.) Men may
overlook what consciousness is. They may mistake the rule of duty,
they may confound consciousness with a mere negative state of
mind, or that in which a man is not conscious of a state of
opposition to the truth. Yet it must for ever remain true that, to
our own minds, "consciousness must be the highest possible
evidence" of what passes within us. And if a man does not by his
own consciousness know whether he does the best that he can, under
the circumstance--whether he has a single eye to the glory of
God--and whether he is in a state of entire consecration to
God--he cannot know it in any way whatever. And no testimony
whatever, either of God or man, could, according to the laws of
his being, satisfy him either as to conviction of guilt on the one
hand, or self-approbation on the other.

(8.) Let me
ask, how those who make this objection know that they are not in a
sanctified state? Has God revealed it to them? Has he revealed it
in the Bible? Does the Bible say to A. B., by name, You are not in
a sanctified state? Or does it lay down a rule, in the light of
which his own consciousness bears this testimony against him? Has
God revealed directly by his Spirit, that he is not in a
sanctified state, or does he hold the rule of duty strongly before
the mind, and thus awaken the testimony of consciousness that he
is not in this state? Now just in the same way consciousness
testifies of those that are sanctified, that they are in this
state. Neither the Bible nor the Spirit of God makes any new or
particular revelation to them by name. But the Spirit of God bears
witness to their spirits by setting the rule in a strong light
before them. He induces that state of mind which conscience
pronounces to be conformity to the rule. This is as far as
possible from setting aside the judgment of God in the case; for
conscience, under these circumstances, is the testimony of God,
and the way in which he convinces of sin on the one hand, and of
entire consecration on the other; and the decision of conscience
is given to us in consciousness.

By some it is
still objected, that consciousness alone is not evidence even to
ourselves of our being, or not being in a state of entire
sanctification, that the judgment of the mind is also employed in
deciding the true intent and meaning of the law, and is therefore
as absolutely a witness in the case as consciousness is.
"Consciousness," it is said, "gives us the exercises of our own
mind, and the judgment decides whether these exercises are in
accordance with the law of God." So then it is the judgment rather
than the consciousness, that decides whether we are, or are not,
in a state of entire sanctification; and therefore if, in our
judgment of the law, we happen to be mistaken, than which nothing
is more common, in such case we are utterly deceived if we think
ourselves in a state of entire sanctification. To this I answer:--

(i.) It is
indeed our judgment that decides upon the intent and meaning of
the law.

(ii.) We may
be mistaken in regard to its true application in certain cases, as
it respects outward conduct, but let it be remembered, that
neither sin nor holiness is to be found in the outward act. They
both belong only to the ultimate intention. No man, as was
formerly shown, can mistake his real duty. Every one knows, and
cannot but know, that disinterested benevolence is his duty. This
is, and nothing else is his duty. This he can know, and about this
he need not mistake. And sure it is, that if man can be certain of
anything, he can be certain in respect to the end for which he
lives, or in respect to his supreme ultimate intention.

(iii.) I deny
that it is the judgment which is to us the witness, in respect to
the state of our own minds. There are several powers of the mind
called into exercise, in deciding upon the meaning of, and in
obeying, the law of God; but it is consciousness alone that gives
us these exercises. Nothing but consciousness can possibly give us
any exercise of our own minds; that is, we have no knowledge of
any exercise but by our own consciousness. Suppose then the
judgment is exercised, the will is exercised, and all the
involuntary powers are exercised. These exercises are revealed to
us only and simply by consciousness; so that it remains an
invariable truth, that consciousness is to us the only possible
witness of what our exercises are, and consequently of the state
of our own minds. When, therefore, I say, that by consciousness a
man may know whether he is in a state of sanctification, I mean,
that consciousness is the real and only evidence that we can have
of being in this state.

Again: the
objection that consciousness cannot decide in regard to the
strength of our powers, and whether we really serve God with all
our strength, seems to be based upon the false supposition, that
the law of God requires every power of body and mind to be excited
at every moment, in its full strength; and that, too, without any
regard to the nature of the subject, about which our powers, for
the time being, are employed. On a former occasion I endeavoured
to show, and trust I did show, that perfect obedience to the law
of God requires no such thing. Sanctification is consecration.
Entire consecration is obedience to the law of God; and all that
the law requires is, that our whole being be consecrated to God;
and the amount of strength to be expended in his service at any
one moment of time, must depend upon the nature of the subject
about which the powers are for the time being employed. And
nothing is farther from the truth than that, obedience to the law
of God requires every power of body and mind to be constantly on
the strain, and in the highest possible degree of excitement and
activity. Such an interpretation of the law of God as this, would
be utterly inconsistent with life and health, and would write MENE
TEKEL upon the life and conduct of Jesus Christ himself; for his
whole history shows, that he was not in a state of constant
excitement, to the full extent of his powers.

This
objection is based upon a misapprehension of that which
constitutes entire or continued sanctification. It consists, as
has been shown, in abiding consecration to God, and not as the
objection assumes, in involuntary affections and feelings. When it
is considered, that entire sanctification consists in an abiding
good will to God and to being in general, in living to one end,
what real impossibility can there be in knowing whether we are
supremely devoted to this end, or supremely devoted to our own
interest?

18. Again: it
is objected, that if this state were attained in this life, it
would be the end of our probation. To this I reply, that probation
since the fall of Adam, or those points on which we are in a state
of probation or trial, are--

(1.) Whether
we will repent and believe the gospel.

(2.) Whether
we will persevere in holiness to the end of life.

Some suppose,
that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints sets aside the
idea of being at all in a state of probation after conversion.
They reason thus: If it is certain that the saints will persevere,
then their probation is ended; because the question is already
settled, not only that they are converted, but that they will
persevere to the end; and the contingency, in regard to the event,
is indispensable to the idea of probation. To this I reply: That a
thing may be contingent with man that is not at all so with God.
With God, there is not, and never was any contingency, in the
sense of uncertainty, with regard to the final destiny of any
being. But with men almost all things are contingent. God knows
with absolute certainty whether a man will be converted, and
whether he will persevere. A man may know that he is converted,
and may believe that by the grace of God he shall persevere. He
may have an assurance of this in proportion to the strength of his
faith. But the knowledge of this fact is not at all inconsistent
with his idea of his continuance in a state of trial till the day
of his death, inasmuch as his perseverance depends upon the
exercise of his own voluntary agency; and also, because his
perseverance is the condition of his final salvation.

In the same
way some say, that if we have attained a state of entire or
permanent sanctification, we can no longer be in a state of
probation. I answer, that perseverance in this depends upon the
promises and grace of God, just as the final perseverance of the
saints does. In neither case can we have any other assurance of
our perseverance, than that of faith in the promise and grace of
God: nor any other knowledge that we shall continue in this state,
than that which arises out of a belief in the testimony of God,
that he will preserve us blameless until the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ. If this be inconsistent with our probation, I see
not why the doctrine of the saint's perseverance is not equally
inconsistent with it. If any one is disposed to maintain, that for
us to have any judgment or belief grounded on the promises of God,
in regard to our final perseverance, is inconsistent with a state
of probation, all I can say is, that his views of probation are
very different from my own, and so far as I understand, from those
of the church of God.

Again: there
is a very high and important sense in which every moral being will
remain on probation to all eternity. While under the moral
government of God, obedience must for ever remain a condition of
the favour of God. And continued obedience will for ever depend on
the faithfulness and grace of God; and the only confidence we can
ever have, either in heaven or on earth, that we shall continue to
obey, must be founded upon the faithfulness and truth of God.

Again: if it
were true, that entering upon a state of permanent sanctification
in this life, were, in some sense, an end of our probation, that
would be no objection to the doctrine; for there is a sense in
which probation often ends long before the termination of this
life. Where, for example, for any cause God has left sinners to
fill up the measure of their iniquity, withdrawing for ever his
Holy Spirit from them, and sealing them over to eternal death;
this, in a very important sense, is the end of their probation,
and they are as sure of hell as if they were already there. So on
the other hand, when a person has received, after believing, the
sealing of the Spirit unto the day of redemption, as an earnest of
his inheritance, he may regard, and is bound to regard this as a
solemn pledge on the part of God, of his final perseverance and
salvation, and as no longer leaving the final question of his
destiny in doubt.

Now it should
be remembered, that in both these cases the result depends upon
the exercise of the agency of the creature. In the case of the
sinner given up of God, it is certain that he will not repent,
though his impenitence is voluntary, and by no means a thing
naturally necessary. So, on the other hand, the perseverance of
the saints is certain, though not necessary. If in either case
there should be a radical change of character, the result would
differ accordingly.

19. Again:
while it is admitted by some, that entire sanctification in this
life is attainable, yet it is denied, that there is any certainty
that it will be attained by any one before death; for, it is said,
that as all the promises of entire sanctification are conditioned
upon faith, they therefore secure the entire sanctification of no
one. To this I reply: That all the promises of salvation in the
Bible are conditioned upon faith and repentance; and therefore it
does not follow on this principle, that any person ever will be
saved. What does all this arguing prove? The fact is, that while
the promises of both salvation and sanctification, are conditioned
upon faith, yet the promises that God will convert and sanctify
the elect, spirit, soul and body, and preserve and save them, must
be fulfilled, and will be fulfilled, by free grace drawing and
securing the concurrence of free-will. With respect to the
salvation of sinners, it is promised that Christ shall have a seed
to serve him, and the Bible abounds with promises to Christ that
secure the salvation of great multitudes of sinners. So the
promises, that the church, as a body, at some period of her
earthly history, shall be entirely sanctified, are, as it regards
the church, unconditional, in the sense that they will assuredly
be accomplished. But, as I have already shown, as it respects
individuals, the fulfilment of these promises must depend upon the
exercise of faith. Both in respect to the salvation of sinners and
the sanctification of Christians, God is abundantly pledged to
bring about the salvation of the one and the sanctification of the
other, to the extent of his promise to Christ.

20. It is
also objected, that the sanctification of the saints depends upon
the sovereignty of God. To this I reply, that both the
sanctification of the saints and the conversion of sinners is, in
some sense, dependent upon the sovereign grace of God. But who
except an antinomian would, for this reason, hesitate to urge it
upon sinners to repent immediately and believe the gospel? Would
any one think of objecting to the doctrine or the fact of
repentance, that repentance and the conversion of sinners were
dependent upon the sovereignty of God?

And yet, if
the sovereignty of God can be justly urged as a bar to the
doctrine of entire sanctification, it may, for ought I see, with
equal propriety be urged as a bar to the doctrine and fact of
repentance. We have no controversy with any one upon the subject
of entire sanctification, who will as fully and as firmly hold out
the duty and the possibility, and the practical attainability, of
entire sanctification, as of repentance and salvation. Let them
both be put where the Bible puts them, upon the same ground, so
far as the duty and the practicability of both are concerned.

Suppose any
one should assert, that it were irrational and dangerous for
sinners to hope or expect to be converted, and sanctified, and
saved, because all this depends upon the sovereignty of God, and
they do not know what God will do. Who would say this? But why not
as well say it, as make the objection to sanctification which we
are now considering?

This
file is CERTIFIED BY GOSPEL TRUTH MINISTRIES TO BE
CONFORMED TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT. For authenticity
verification, its contents can be compared to the
original file at www.GospelTruth.net
or by contacting Gospel Truth P.O. Box 6322, Orange, CA
92863. (C)2000. This file is not to be changed in any
way, nor to be sold, nor this seal to be
removed.